Late last week, a story broke that revealed glyphosate — the chemical name of Roundup herbicide — multiplies the proliferation of breast cancer cells by 500% to 1300%… even at exposures of just a few parts per trillion (ppt).

There’s a whole lot more to this story, however, but to follow it, you need to understand these terms:

ppm = parts per million = 10 (-6) = number of parts out of a million

ppb = parts per billion = 10 (-9), which is 1,000 times smaller than ppm

ppt = parts per trillion = 10 (-12), which is 1,000 times smaller than ppb and 1,000,000 times smaller than ppm

The study found that breast cancer cell proliferation is accelerated by glyphosate in extremely low concentrations: ppt to ppb. The greatest effect was observed in the ppb range, including single-digit ppb such as 1 ppb.

Glyphosate is a non-selective systemic herbicide used in agriculture, rights-of-way and aquatic systems. Exposure to glyphosate may occur from its normal use due to drift, residues in food crops and from runoff into potential drinking water sources.

It then goes on to state something borrowed straight from Monsanto‘s quack science team: “Glyphosate is not mutagenic or teratogenic and there is no evidence for reproductive toxicity in multigeneration studies in rats.”

Based on this blatant lie, California set an upper limit of “1.0 mg/L (1,000 ppb) for glyphosate in drinking water.”

Yes, that’s 1,000 times higher than the amount now shown to cause a 500% to 1300% increase in cancer cell proliferation.

What’s even more shocking is that California’s allowable exposure level was nearly 50% HIGHER than the federal (EPA) level — 700 ppb.

Yes, California — the state where more people are concerned about GMOs than seemingly anywhere else — actually used Monsanto-sounding language in its “official” report that set a higher water contamination level than the federal government!

Glyphosate carcinotoxicity was documented years earlier

Even though California released this document in 1997, the state was already willfully ignoring a growing body of scientific evidence documenting glyphosate toxicity. For example, a study published two years earlier — in 1995 — in the Journal of Pesticide Reform (Volume 15, Number 3, Fall 1995) written by Caroline Cox concluded:

Glyphosate-containing products are acutely toxic to animals, including humans. …In animal studies, feeding of glyphosate for three months caused reduced weight gain, diarrhea, and salivary gland lesions. Lifetime feeding of glyphosate caused excess growth and death of liver cells, cataracts and lens degeneration, and increases in the frequency of thyroid, pancreas, and liver tumors.

In other words, California knew — or should have known — that glyphosate was harmful to humans. But the California government willfully ignored this evidence and seemingly went out of its way to incorporate deceptive Monsanto spin into its “Public Health Goal” documents, thereby allowing 1,000 times higher levels of glyphosate in drinking water than we now know to cause cancer cell proliferation!

Ten years later, California lowers its level by just 10%

Fast forward to 2007. After a public comment period which was no doubt dominated by disinfo-spewing Monsanto trolls, the state of California issued an updated Public Health Goal (PHG) document.

It concludes that the allowable glyphosate exposure for all Californians should be lowered to 900 ppb — still nine hundred times higher than the amount needed to accelerate cancer cell growth as we see in the study released last week.

Hearings have been held in both the Washington state Senate (Feb. 14) and the House (March 5) on the initiative to label GMOs in our food. It is highly unusual for the legislature to take action on an initiative so it is likely that I-522 will show up on our ballots next November. It behooves us to educate ourselves about this important issue.

A majority of Americans favor labeling GMOs
According to a poll taken two weeks ago by the Huffington Post, 82% of Americans think that GMOs should be labeled, 9% believe they don’t need to be labeled and 8% aren’t sure. The poll also showed that, while most people think that GMOs should be labeled, many people don’t really know too much about GMOs.

What is a GMO?
A genetically modified organism, or GMO is the term commonly used for crops that have been genetically engineered (GE) to produce some desired trait. The first GE crops were tobacco plants modified in 1986 to be resistant to direct application of herbicides. The following year, tobacco plants were engineered to resist insects. There followed a host of field trials to also develop plants resistant to viral and fungal diseases and to modify traits such as ripening, starch content and so on. In 1995 the FDA approved GE corn, soy, cotton, canola, potato, squash and tomato for commercialization and the amount of GE crops since then has been steadily increasing. Most often the genes are altered to render
the plant resistant to either insects or herbicides.

How are plants engineered to be insect resistant (IR)?
Sections of the DNA from the bacteria known as Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt)are isolated and inserted into the plant cells by a process known as genetic transformation. The entire plant is then regenerated from the transgenic plant cells. There are thousands of different Bt strains that produce protein crystals toxic to insect pests. Particular strains are chosen to target specific plant pests. The resulting plant contains the Bt toxin in its cells. When the plant is eaten by the target insect the toxin binds to receptors in the insect’s gut, causing the gut wall to break down and allowing toxin spores and normal gut bacteria to enter the body. As spores and bacteria proliferate in the body, the insect dies.

How are plants engineered to be herbicide tolerant (HT)?
Micro-organisms are identified that are tolerant of the active chemical in the herbicide. In the case of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate-resistant enzymes are isolated from a strain of Agrobacterium. These are inserted into the genes of the plant via a multi-step process resulting in a plant that can withstand direct application of the herbicide.

The stance taken by Monsanto, Dow and the other peddlers of both chemicals and genetically engineered seeds is that GMO food is “identical to non-GMO products.” They claim that genetic engineering is no different than plant hybridization, which has been practiced for centuries. It is the reason they gave, and the EPA accepted, for not having to submit GMO food to rigorous testing to obtain EPA approval. It’s up to the companies that manufacture GMOs to research and determine thesafety of their products. Not only are the bacteria genes themselves potentially toxic, but the plants can be sprayed directly with herbicides, the herbicide-resistant plants absorb the poisons and we eat them. It’s difficult to understand how this can be considered “essentially” the same as plant hybridization.

GMOs are prevalent in the U.S. food supply

Chances are that corn chip you are eating has been genetically engineered. Even more so if it has been fried in canola, corn, cottonseed, or soy oil. Most residents of the U.S. are consuming large quantities of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in their food. GMOs were first approved by the FDA for food crops in 1994. Since then the number of FDA approvals for GMO crops has steadily increased.

How are transgenic or genetically engineered (GE) crops approved?
The USDA/Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) issues permits for field trials, and later for general environmental release of GE crops. If the GE crop contains a pesticide, as is the case for Bt crops, approval is also required by the Environmental Protection Agency. If the product from a transgenic crop is for food or feed use, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) must give final approval before the crops can be grown commercially.

How many and what kind of GE crops have been approved?
As of August, 2012, there have been a total of 144 crops approved by the FDA. The most widely and rapidly adopted transgenic crops in the United States are those with herbicide-tolerant traits. Of the 144 crops approved by the FDA, 75% have been genetically engineered to either withstand direct applications of herbicides or they contain an insecticide Bt toxin, or both. In the mid-’90s, scientists figured out how to combine more than one trait in the same plant. These were first released in 1997 and are called “stacked gene traits.” The crops that have been approved are summarized in the table below, along with a partial list of food products and other uses for each type of crop. Any or all of these products can be found in packaged foods and drinks: cereals, energy bars, chips, juices etc.

How prevalent are these transgenic crops in the food supply?
The USDA estimates that in 2012, 93% of all soy, 88% of the corn and 94% of the cotton grown in the U.S. was genetically engineered. The USDA only collects GE data on these three crops. The figure below shows the percent change of GE crops planted since 1996:

It could be argued that not all of these crops are grown for human consumption. Some are grown for animal feed. But the percentage of the crops grown for animal feed are still in the food supply in the form of meat, eggs, milk and milk products. Some of these crops are grown for bio-fuels and textiles. But as long as the amount used for non-food products are taken randomly from the supply, the percentage does not change. Only if most or all of the GE corn and soy are used for bio-fuels, for example, would the overall percentage change. The same is true for the cotton. Are you eating GMOs? You have been eating GMOs in steadily increasing amounts since 1996. If your diet consists of a lot of corn, soy, potato, sugar, or packaged foods, you are eating a great deal of GMOs.

GMO crops increase pesticide use
Contrary to claims made by the chemical industries, glyphosate use increased 6,504% from 1991 to 2010 according to data from the USDA: National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). States participating in the USDA surveys reported applying a whopping 91,200 tons (1 rail car holds approximately100 tons) of glyphosate on corn, cotton and soy crops alone in 2010 (see graph). Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup™, the herbicide used on Roundup Ready™ crops genetically engineered (GE) to withstand glyphosate. Glyphosate residues of up to 4.4 mg/kg have been detected in stems, leaves and beans of glyphosate-resistant soy, indicating metabolism of the herbicide. This means that the Roundup Ready™ plants are absorbing the herbicide and you cannot simply wash it off.

Glyphosate is showing up everywhere
In a 2011 study by the U.S. Geological Survey, glyphosate was frequently detected in water, rain and air in the Mississippi River basin. Also in 2011, Chang et al. reported concentrations of glyphosate in air and rain as high as 2.5 μg/L in agricultural areas in Mississippi and Iowa. The presence of two insecticides and 27 herbicides were detected in reservoir water in the Northern Great Plains in 2007, according to Donald et al. The total concentration of herbicides in drinking water was 2.4 μg/L. Because glysophate is in our air, water and food, we are likely accumulating low doses over time.

Overall pesticide use on GMO crops is increasing
“Pesticide” is a broad term encompassing both herbicides and insecticides. The graph showing the percentage of the combined total acreage of corn, cotton and soy treated with herbicides shows an overall increase of 6% from 1990 to 2010. There was also a 1,722% increase in the percentage of acres treated with glyphosate, primarily used to treat GE glyphosate-resistant crops. This leads to the conclusion that the overall increase in herbicide use is due to the increase in glyphosates. Thepercentage of acreage treated with insecticides oscillates a bit but remains steady.

While the percentage of crops treated with herbicides is increasing, the application rate in lbs/acre of active ingredient has also increased for glyphosate, meaning that more of the product has been applied more often over time. This is probably due to the increase in glyphosate-resistant weeds, or “superweeds,” shown in the first graph. The chemical industry’s solution is to engineer varieties resistant to stronger herbicides, 2,4-D and dicamba. Indeed, the FDA has already approved three two for soy and one for corn. The total herbicide application rate did decline from 1997-2000, but then rose steadily until it again reached pre-GMO crop rates.

The insecticide application rates have oscillated but have shown a steady decline. As previously reported, GE corn was slower to be integrated and the insecticide rates for corn (not shown) show a steady decrease. But the insecticide rates for soy and cotton oscillate. The percentage of acres treated for insecticides is shown in the final graph. There was a sharp rise in the application rate of insecticide applied to cotton around 2000, corresponding to the peak in the percentage of acres treated for cotton. There are increasing reports of bollworm resistance to the Bt toxin in GE cotton. The industry
solution? Genetically engineer cotton with two or more stacked Bt traits. Why there are increasing insecticide applications to soybeans is a mystery.

One of the main selling points for GE crops was that they would decrease pesticide use. This has not been realized.

Note: Data for all three crops, corn, cotton and soy, were not available for every year from 1990-2010. Data for some of these years for some crops were interpolated before being combined.

Data trends show correlations between increases in organ diseases and GMOs
Prevalence and incidence data show correlations between diseases of the organs and the increase in Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in the food supply, along with the increase in glyphosatebased herbicide applications (see slide show). More and more studies have revealed carcinogenic and endocrine disrupting effects of Roundup at lower doses than those authorized for residues found in Genetically Modified Organisms (see notes below).

What is an endocrine disruptor?
The endocrine system controls the body’s chemical messages through hormones. Hormones are secreted directly into the blood by the endocrine glands: pineal, hypothalmus, pituitary, adrenal, thyroid, thymus, pancreas, ovaries and testes. The glands release carefully measured amounts of chemicals into the bloodstream to regulate important functions including growth and development, reproduction, healthy weight, mood and organ performance. An endocrine disruptor is a chemical that either mimics or blocks hormones and disrupts the body’s normal functions. This disruption can happen through altering normal hormone levels, halting or stimulating the production of hormones, or
interacting directly with the organ the hormone was meant to regulate. Because hormones work at very small doses, endocrine disruption can occur from low-dose exposure to hormonally active chemicals. Low doses over long periods of time may lead to very serious illnesses.

What are the effects of endocrine disruption?
Endocrine disruptors can lead to failure in all systems in the body that are controlled by hormones. Imbalances and malfunctions of the endocrine system can lead to diabetes, kidney disease, hypertension, obesity, osteoporosis, Cushing’s syndrome, hypo- and hyperthyroidism, infertility, birth defects, erectile dysfunction, cancer (breast, prostate, liver, brain, thyroid, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma), sexual development problems, neurological disorders (learning disabilities, attention deficit disorder, autism, dementia, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, schizophrenia) among others. Endocrine disruptors are especially damaging to growth in fetuses, babies and children.

Correlations between the increase in glyphosate use on crops and organ disease
It was shown in previous articles that there has been a huge increase in the amount of glyphosates applied to corn and soy crops grown in the U.S. corresponding to the rise in the percentage of corn and soy planted with genetically engineered (GE) varieties. Those data represent only a portion of the total GE crops and amount of glyphosates applied. The USDA only collects data on GE crops for corn, cotton and soy. Since most of the corn (88%) and soy (94%) planted now is GE, these data give a representation of the rising trends in both GE crops and herbicide use. Glyphosate was first marketed for weed control under the trade name Roundup™ in 1976 but data are not available before 1990.

If GE crops and associated glyphosate use are causing diseases of the organs, one would expect to see a correlation in the data. The data for corn and soy crops have been plotted against the incidence rates (new cases reported per year) of cancers of the thyroid, kidney and liver. Cancers of the thyroid and liver especially seem to track with the advent of GE crops and associated glyphosate applications. Thyroid cancer seems to affect women more often, while males are more susceptible to liver cancer. This is in agreement with data in rats reported by Séralini et al. “… the sex hormonal balance was modified by GMO and Roundup treatments. In treated males, liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5–5.5 times higher.”

The data for corn and soy crops have also been plotted against: % of U.S. population who are obese,
who have high blood pressure, and hospitalizations for acute kidney injury (a sudden, temporary, and
sometimes fatal loss of kidney function). While these data aren’t available before 1995, the trends are
remarkably coincident.

Finally the corn and soy crop data are plotted against the incidence and prevalence (number of people
who have the disease) of diabetes and end stage renal disease (ESRD — kidney failure). The
correlation is clear for diabetes. This is also in agreement with the Séralini study, “.. data confirmed
very significant kidney chronic deficiencies; for all treatments and both sexes, 76% of the altered
parameters were kidney related.” The correlation is not as clear for ESRD which seems to have been
steadily increasing before 1996, however the trends are in the same direction indicating that GE crops
may be a contributing factor.

Correlation does not necessarily imply cause and there may be other factors. Other known endocrine
disruptors are: BPA (bisphenol-A) & phthalates (both in plastics), dioxins (byproduct of smelting,
paper bleaching, manufacture of herbicides and pesticides), and atrazine polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs — used in electrical equipment, coatings, inks, adhesives, flame-retardants, and paints). Indeed,
we are bombarded with a veritable cocktail of chemicals daily in addition to GMOs and their associated
herbicides. These include food preservatives (BHA & BHT), water contaminants (chlorine & fluoride),
food additives (aspartame, monosodium glutamate, carrageenan), and food coloring to name a few. We
have been exposed to an increasing background level of chemicals for over 40 years. The body burden
becomes overwhelming. GMOs may be pushing us off the cliff. Certainly more research should be
done to firmly establish causality.

Acknowledgment: Jon Abrahamson helped with data mining for this article.

Notes:

There are many scientific studies showing that glyphosate and the additives in Roundup are toxic to
human cells. Below is a list of those most pertinent to this discussion.

In 2004, Marc et al. reported that glyphosate-based pesticides cause cell-cycle dysfunction that leads to
development of cancer.

In 2009 Gasnier et al. published an article in the journal Toxicology citing evidence that glyphosatebased
(G-based) herbicides are endocrine disruptors in human cells. They reported toxic effects to liver
cells “at 5 ppm [parts per million], and the first endocrine disrupting actions at 0.5 ppm, which is 800
times lower than the level authorized in some food or feed (400 ppm, USEPA, 1998). … In conclusion,
according to these data and the literature, G-based herbicides present DNA damages … on human
cells.”

In 2012 Koller et al. reported that glyphosate and its formulation (Roundup) is toxic to cells,
particularly organ cells, and exhibits DNA-damaging properties “after short exposure to concentrations
that correspond to a 450-fold dilution of spraying used in agriculture.”

What is often overlooked is the role of “inert” ingredients in glyphosate formulations like Roundup,
which have been found to amplify glyphosate toxicity.
In 2005, Richard et al. reported that “glyphosate is toxic to human placental JEG3 cells within 18 hr
with concentrations lower than those found with agricultural use, and this effect increases with
concentration and time or in the presence of Roundup adjuvants. Surprisingly, Roundup is always more
toxic than its active ingredient. … We conclude that endocrine and toxic effects of Roundup, not just
glyphosate, can be observed in mammals.”

In 2012, Mesnage et al. reported, “This study demonstrates that all the glyphosate-based herbicides
tested are more toxic than glyphosate alone … The formulated herbicides (including Roundup) can
affect all living cells, especially human cells. Among them, POE-15 clearly appears to be the most
toxic principle against human cells, … We demonstrate in addition that POE-15 induces necrosis when
its first micellization process occurs, by contrast to glyphosate which is known to promote endocrine
disrupting effects after entering cells.”

The endocrine disrupting properties of glyphosate can lead to reproductive problems: infertility,
miscarriage, birth defects, and sexual development (see notes). Fetuses, infants and children are
especially susceptible because they are continually experiencing growth and hormonal changes. For
optimal growth and development, it is crucial that their hormonal system is functioning properly.
There are increasing reports of glyphosates and glyphosate formulations causing sexual dysfunction,
low birth weight, fewer births and sterility in laboratory animals, farm animals and humans (see notes).
A Russian study found that feeding hamsters GMO soy resulted in complete sterility after two or three
generations.
Glyphosate was first marketed in 1976 and its use has exploded since the advent of glyphosateresistant,
genetically engineered (GE) crops in 1995. The herbicide-resistant GE crops absorb
glyphosate through direct application and from the soil and it cannot be washed off. It is in the food.

Infertility

According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), the number of women ages 15-44 with impaired
ability to have children is 6.7 million (10.9%). The number of women ages 15-44 who have ever used
infertility services is 7.4 million. According to the graph showing results for Assisted Reproductive
Technologies (ART), the number of live births resulting from ART increased 113% from 1999 to 2008.
Since ART is expensive and not generally covered by medical insurance, infertility issues affect many
more people than this graph shows:

Birth Statistics

In the U.S., both the percentage of preterm births and babies born with low birth weight have been
slowly increasing since 1990, more steeply increasing from 1995 to 2006 and declining slightly since
then (see slide show). The percentage of preterm births (less than 37 weeks of gestation) rose 21%
from 1990 through 2006 (16% from 1995-2006) and has since declined but is still 10% higher than in
1990. The percentage of babies born with low birth weight (LBW, less than 5lb 8oz.) rose 19% from
1990-2006 (14% from 1995-2006) and have also declined slightly since then but are still 17% higher
than in 1990.

Interestingly, a report by Hamilton et al. for the Center for Disease Control (CDC) shows a drop in both
the fertility and birth rates in the U.S. since 2007. Perhaps the women at highest risk are no longer able
to become pregnant.

The infant mortality rate in the U.S. has been steadily dropping for decades, until 2000. According to
the CDC, the infant mortality rate dropped 40% from 1980 to 1995 and 19% from 1995-2010 with no
drop in the period from 2000-2005. It has dropped less than half as much in the last 15 years as in the
previous 15 years.

The second highest cause of infant mortality is complications due to preterm birth or low birth weight.
This, along with maternal complications of pregnancy were both increasing, along with the increase in
preterm births and LBW in live births. There has been conjecture that LBW and preterm births may be
due to the increase in ART births, since multiple births are more likely to result and these problems are
more common in multiple births. This cannot be the case because the ART graph shows that the
number of multiple births did not change from 2002 to 2006, during the period of steepest increase.

The slight drop in these statistics since 2006 may be because of growing awareness at that time of
endocrine disrupting BPA (bisphenol-A) & phthalates in plastics. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Improvement Act, passed in 2008, banned the use of phthalates in children’s products.

Only one generation has passed since the introduction of GE crops so it may be a bit early for the full
effects to become apparent but the data trends are showing that strange things are happening.

Birth defects

The leading cause of infant mortality in the U.S. is congenital birth defects. There have been reports
that glyphosate is toxic to placental, umbilical and embryonic cells (see notes). The placenta, via the
umbilical chord, is responsible for delivering vital nutrients and eliminating waste products to and from
the fetus. Once the placenta and/or umbilical has been damaged or destroyed, the result can be
miscarriage or birth defects. Birth defects due to exposure to glyphosate and glyphosate formulations
have been reported for amphibians and for humans (see notes).

Research at Johns Hopkins University shows that women with thyroid disease are at a high risk of
delivering infants with birth defects. Strong correlation was shown between cancer of the thyroid and
glyphosate use on corn and soy crops and that thyroid cancer affects women more than men.

Birth defects have not been increasing in the U.S., but in the soy-producing regions of Argentina, they
have been skyrocketing. In 2010 the University of Cordoba released a report showing that the
incidence rate of birth defects in South America has increased by 347% from 1997 to 2008, which they
claim is linked to areal spraying of glyphosate on soy crops. People in Argentina began reporting
problems in 2002, two years after the first big harvests of GM Roundup Ready soy. “San Jorge in
Santa Fe, San Nicolás in Buenos Aires, Ituzaingó neighborhood in Córdoba, and La Leonesa in Chaco,
are only some of the places where the increased number of cancer cases, birth defects, reproductive and
endocrine disorders, have been suffered and detected ever since systematic pesticide spraying has
become commonplace.”

There are many endocrine disrupting chemicals in our environment and in our food. The huge increase
in the amount of glyphosate applied to GE food and feed crops has significantly increased our exposure
to endocrine disrupting chemicals. Much more research is needed to study the effects.

Acknowledgement: Jon Abrahamson helped with data mining for this article.

Notes:Infertility and low birth rates:Laboratory animals:
In 1995 Yousef et al. reported on toxic effects of glyphosate on semen characteristics in rabbits,
“Pesticide treatment resulted in a decline in body weight, libido, ejaculate volume, sperm
concentration, semen initial fructose and semen osmolality. This was accompanied with increases in
the abnormal and dead sperm.”

In 2008, Austrian researchers found that mice fed GM corn produced fewer and smaller babies than
those fed a non-GM diet.

In April 2010, a Russian study found that after feeding hamsters GM soy for two years over three
generations, most were sterile by the third generation.

2011 Siepmann et al. reported, “Hypogonadism and erectile dysfunction associated with soy product
consumption,” in a 19-year old male (who was also diabetic). Unfortunately, they didn’t make the
connection that the soy was almost certainly GE.

In 2012 Antoniou et al. published a review of the evidence of the reproductive toxicity of glyphosate
herbicides and concluded that a new and transparent risk assessment needs to be conducted.

In 2012 Irina Ermakova reported low birth weight and a 55.6% mortality rate in the babies of rats fed
GMO soy compared to 6.8% in the control group.

Humans:
In 2001 Arbuckle et al, reported on the effect of pesticide exposure on the risk of spontaneous abortion
in Ontario. “For late abortions, preconception exposure to glyphosate … was associated with elevated
risks. Postconception exposures were generally associated with late spontaneous abortions. Older
maternal age (> 34 years of age) was the strongest risk factor for spontaneous abortions, and we
observed several interactions between pesticides in the older age group.”

Birth defects:Cells:
In 2005, Richard et al. reported that “glyphosate is toxic to human placental JEG3 cells within 18 hr
with concentrations lower than those found with agricultural use, and this effect increases with
concentration and time or in the presence of Roundup adjuvants.”

In 2009, Benachour et al. evaluated the toxicity of four glyphosate (G)-based herbicides in Roundup
formulations on three different human cell types using a dilution far below agricultural
recommendations and corresponds to low levels of residues in food or feed. They reported that
glyphosate formulations induce apoptosis and necrosis in human umbilical, embryonic, and placental
cells.

Amphibians:
In 2010, Paganelli et al. injected low doses (lower than levels used in fumigating) of glyphosate into
amphibian embryos and recorded brain, intestinal and heart defects in the fetuses. Effects included
reduced head size, genetic alterations in the central nervous system, increased death of cells that help
form the skull, deformed cartilage, eye defects, and undeveloped kidneys. In addition, the glyphosate
was not breaking down in the cells, but was accumulating. According to the authors these results are
“completely comparable to what would happen in the development of the human embryo.”

Humans:
In 2009, Mesnage et al. reported two cases of birth defects in the same family in France after multiple
pesticide exposure. “Many pesticides were used by this family around pregnancies. The father sprayed,
without protection, more than 1.3 tons of pesticides per year including 300 liters of glyphosate based
herbicides.”

In 2009, Winchester et al., reported, “Elevated concentrations of agrichemicals in surface water in
April–July coincided with higher risk of birth defects in live births with LMPs [last menstrual periods]
April–July.”

Data show correlations between increase in neurological diseases and GMOs

The endocrine disrupting properties of glyphosate can lead to neurological disorders (learning
disabilities (LD), attention deficit hyperactive disorder (ADHD), autism, dementia, Alzheimer’s,
schizophrenia and bipolar disorder). Those most susceptible are children and the elderly.

Glyphosate was first marketed in 1976 and its use has exploded since the advent of glyphosateresistant,
genetically engineered (GE) crops in 1995. The herbicide-resistant GE crops absorb
glyphosate through direct application and from the soil and it cannot be washed off. It is in the food .
Glyphosate has also been found in rivers, streams, air and rain.

The thyroid is an endocrine organ that secretes the thyroid hormone. Thyroid dysfunction has been
identified with mood disorders. Depression is frequently associated with low levels of thyroid
hormone (hypothyroidism), while mood elevation is often associated with high levels of thyroid
hormone (hyperthyroidism). An endocrine disrupting chemical (EDC) can cause erratic behavior.
Recent studies have shown links between food additives and neurotoxicity in cells and hyperactive
behavior in children. Incidents have been reported of laboratory rats and farm animals exhibiting
uncharacteristic aggressive and anti-social behavior on being fed a diet consisting of GMO soy or corn.

Many scientific studies have shown links between thyroid disruption and neurological diseases.
“Thyroid hormones are critical for development of the fetal and neonatal brain, as well as for many
other aspects of pregnancy and fetal growth. Hypothyroidism in either the mother or fetus frequently
results in fetal disease; in humans, this includes a high incidence of mental retardation. … numerous
studies with rats, sheep and humans have reinforced this concept…” According to de Cock et al,
“Perinatal exposure to EDCs appears to be associated with the occurrence of ASD [autism spectrum
disorder] as well as ADHD. Disruption of thyroid hormone function … may offer an explanation for
the observed relations….” MacSweeney et al. report, “that the mothers of 104 schizophrenic patients
had: (1) a significantly higher incidence of thyroid disease than a carefully matched control group; (2)
significantly more abortions, still-births and greater infant mortality. The findings and possible
relevance of thyroid disease to schizophrenia are discussed.” Strong correlation was shown between
cancer of the thyroid and glyphosate use on corn and soy crops and that thyroid cancer affects women
more than men. It seems that women are more sensitive to thyroid disruption.

The incidence and prevalence for neurological disorders have been skyrocketing. Data trends over
time for neurological disorders are not readily available for two reasons: they are not as well-studied as
other diseases (cancer, diabetes etc.), and the diagnostic methods keep changing. The experts argue
over whether the increases are real, or a by-product of changes in diagnostics along with greater
attention given to these disorders in recent times. For example, a former diagnosis of mental
retardation might now result in a diagnosis of autism. Furthermore there is a large degree of overlap in
symptoms. Typical manifestations of ADHD, such as distractibility or hyperactivity are also present in
pediatric bipolar disorder, for example.

Children
ADHD According to the New York Times, “an estimated 6.4 million children ages 4 through 17 had
received an A.D.H.D. diagnosis at some point in their lives, a 16 percent increase since 2007 and a 41
percent rise in the past decade.” From the Center for Disease Control (CDC), “rates of ADHD
diagnosis increased an average of 3% per year from 1997 to 2006 and an average of 5.5% per year
from 2003 to 2007. … It is not possible to tell whether this increase represents a change in the number
of children who have ADHD, or a change in the number of children who were diagnosed.” It also
makes a great deal of difference who is doing the reporting: parents or doctors. The disorder affects
boys more than girls. Whatever the numbers, there seems to be an increasing behavioral problem with
our youth. Our solution is to give them more chemicals in the form of mood-altering drugs.

Bipolar According to a 2007 report by Moreno et al., “the annual number of office-based visits with a
diagnosis of bipolar disorder was estimated to increase in youth from 25 (1994-1995) to 1003 (2002-
2003) per 100,000 population, whereas in adults it increased from 905 (1994-1995) to 1679 (2002-
2003) per 100,000 population. … most youth bipolar disorder visits were by males (66.5%), whereas
most adult bipolar disorder visits were by females (67.6%).”

Autism The number of autistic children has exploded during the last decade, and some are calling it an
epidemic. There is great controversy over what is causing this and whether all of it is real. “But many
researchers now say that at least part of the rise in autism is real and caused by something in the
environment. Rather than quibbling over recounts they are focusing on finding the causes.”

It was shown in previous articles that there has been a huge increase in the amount of glyphosates
applied to corn and soy crops grown in the U.S. corresponding to the rise in the percentage of corn and
soy planted with genetically engineered (GE) varieties. Those data represent only a portion of the total
GE crops and amount of glyphosates applied. The USDA only collects data on GE crops for corn,
cotton and soy. Since most of the corn (88%) and soy (94%) planted now is GE, these data give a
representation of the rising trends in both GE crops and herbicide use.

The amount of glyphosate applied to U.S. corn and soy crops is plotted against the prevalence of
autism in the graph below. The prevalence of autism was difficult to find and the values shown on this
graph came from many sources using different methods and different age groups. A better estimate
was obtained from the U.S. Department of Education, which keeps track of school age children
receiving services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). A second plot is
shown using data from USDE for the number of autistic children receiving services. The correlation is
quite strong which may indicate that glyphosate is a contributing factor in the rise of autism.

Elderly
The elderly are susceptible because they may already have a great body burden of chemical exposure
over their lifetime and because some of their body processes are shutting down and hormonal
disruptions can have a much greater effect on them.
According to the University of Washington Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, Alzheimer’s
disease went from number 32 in 1990 to number nine in 2010 in the ranking of leading causes of death
in the U.S. Senile Dementia and it’s care costs have also skyrocketed in the last two decades.
Prevalence and incidence data were sparse, but data on death rates were available from 1979. Graphs
of the death rates for Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s disease and Senile Dementia have been plotted against
glyphosate applications to U.S. corn and soy crops. Again, the correlations are quite strong. Deaths
due to Alzheimer’s have been rising since 1980, but there is a sharp spike in 1999.

Correlation does not necessarily imply causation and there are now a host of chemicals in our food and
our environment. The huge increase in the amount of glyphosate applied to GE food and feed crops
has significantly increased our exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals. In a previous article,
correlations were shown between glyphosate use, GMO crop increase and: thyroid cancer, liver cancer,
obesity, high blood pressure, acute kidney injury, incidence and prevalence of diabetes and end stage
renal disease. All of these diseases and disorders were carefully chosen based on:
1 Glyphosate is a known endocrine disruptor.
2. Endocrine disruptors can cause organ and neurological damage.
3. Roundup™ and GMOs have shown liver and kidney damage and abnormal behavior in rat studies.
4. Use of glyphosate on herbicide-resistant crops has skyrocketed since 1995.
5. Incidence, prevalence and deaths due to these diseases has also skyrocketed since 1995.

It seems improbable that the correlations in the nine graphs of glyphosates and organ disease, and the
three presented here (for a total of 12), can all be coincidence. There has been a trend among the
agricultural and food industries and their regulators to engage in practices that place the consumers at
risk, emerging in the mid-1990s and growing. It involves not just GMOs but many other things as well
and those factors may may be correlated with each other. That may make it impossible to separate out
which one caused a particular effect. Much more research needs to be done. Our children are
disturbed and our elders are dying horribly.

Acknowledgment: Jon Abrahamson helped with data mining for this article.

Notes:
In 2006 Irena Ermakova reported to the European Congress of Psychiatry that, “As in previous series
the behavior of males from GM group was compared with the behavior of control rats. Obtained data
showed a high level of anxiety and aggression in males, females and young pups from GM groups.
Aggression was more expressed in females and rat pups: they attacked and bite each other and the
worker.” 14th European Congress of Psychiatry, Nice, France, Sunday, March 5 2006, Poster #048.

Numerous anecdotal reports of animals on GMO diets behaving aggressively and anti-socially have
been reported by farmers and veterinarians.

In 2006, Grandjean and Landrigan reported on developmental neurotoxicity of industrial chemicals.
“Neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism, attention deficit disorder, mental retardation, and
cerebral palsy are common, costly, and can cause lifelong disability. … Exposure to these chemicals
during early fetal development can cause brain injury at doses much lower than those affecting adult
brain function.”

Could crops that are genetically engineered as pesticide producers be a factor in the explosion of
intestinal and immune disorders in the U.S.?

GE engineering for insect resistant (IR) crops
Sections of the DNA from the bacteria known as Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) are isolated and inserted
into the plant cells by a process known as genetic transformation. The entire plant is then regenerated
from the transgenic plant cells. There are thousands of different Bt strains that produce proteins toxic
to insect pests. Particular strains are chosen to target specific plant pests. The resulting plant contains
the Bt toxin in its cells. When the plant is eaten by the target insect the toxin binds to receptors in the
insect’s gut, causing the gut wall to break down and allowing toxins and normal gut bacteria to enter the
body. As the toxins and bacteria proliferate in the body, the insect dies.
Could it be coincidence that this is the exact description of “Leaky Gut syndrome”?

Leaky Gut syndrome
According to Dr. Andrew Weil, “Leaky gut syndrome is not generally recognized by conventional
physicians, but evidence is accumulating that it is a real condition that affects the lining of the
intestines. The theory is that leaky gut syndrome (also called increased intestinal permeability), is the
result of damage to the intestinal lining, making it less able to protect the internal environment as well
as to filter needed nutrients and other biological substances. As a consequence, some bacteria and their
toxins, incompletely digested proteins and fats, and waste not normally absorbed may “leak” out of the
intestines into the blood stream. This triggers an autoimmune reaction, which can lead to
gastrointestinal problems such as abdominal bloating, excessive gas and cramps, fatigue, food
sensitivities, joint pain, skin rashes, and autoimmunity.”

Can Leaky Gut be caused by the Bt crops?
According to the producers of the Bt insecticide crops, the portion of the Bt DNA that is used does not
survive the digestive process in humans. This may be true for the bare DNA strands, but the Bt
proteins do survive. Aris et al. found these Bt toxins in the blood of pregnant women and their fetuses
which they reported in the journal of Reproductive Toxicology (2011). Even so, say the manufacturers,
there is no cause to worry because the toxins are selective and only bind to receptors in the insect gut.
Humans don’t have these receptors.

According to Dr. Arpad Pusztai, who was involved in the pioneering research on the Bt potato, “There
is no [such thing as] absolute selectivity!” Furthermore, he says that the very process of genetic
modification causes unknown and uncontrollable mutations in the plant. There is “no means of
directing the gene transfer … You are shooting blindfold … genetic insertion causes mutations … You
can’t say where it [the genetic bit] landed … you don’t know how things were reshuffled.” The plant’s
own genes are affected and we don’t really know how. Pusztai calls this, “insertional mutagenesis,”
mutation of an organism caused by the insertion of DNA into the organism’s preexisting DNA.

Pusztai did an experiment with rats where he fed one group a food mixture that contained the Bt toxin
alone and the other group were fed the the same mixture except it contained the Bt potato. The potato
mixture contained 800 times less of the Bt toxin. The rats who were fed the Bt toxin alone were fine,
as advertised. But the rats who were fed the Bt potato were not. They were smaller, their livers were
smaller, but their stomachs and small intestines were larger. The toxin in the potato was different than
the toxin alone. Pusztai published his work (Lancet, 1999) and when his employment contract expired
it was not renewed.

The intestinal lining of livestock in the U.S. is so poor these days that meat processors import sausage
casings from New Zealand. According to Dr. Huber, “When you look at the intestine of those pigs fed
the GMO feed, the lining is deteriorated and the critical microbial balance is drastically changed.”

Intestinal disease and Bt corn
The first Bt corn, cotton and potato were approved by the FDA as food crops in 1995. The corn was
genetically engineered to be resistant to the European Corn Borer (ECB). Since then there have been
numerous approvals for Bt corn, cotton, potato and, in 2010 for soy. In 2002 the FDA approved
another Bt corn variety engineered as an insecticide against the corn rootworm. The Bt potato never
really took hold, apparently because the fast-food producers refused to buy it.

The Center for Disease Control (CDC) maintains the National Hospital Discharge Survey. Records
were accessed for discharges with any diagnosis listed for a variety of intestinal ailments from 1990-
2010. Dr. Charles Benbrook of the Washington State University published a report showing that
pesticide use has increased since the advent of GMOs. He obtained data from the USDA and
Monsanto reports to estimate percentages of GE corn and cotton that were planted in Bt varieties.

These data are plotted in the graphs below. The first graph is a plot of hospital discharge diagnoses of
inflammatory bowel disease (IBD — Crohn’s and ulcerative colitis) against the number of acres of Bt
corn planted (ECB-targeted). The diagnoses for IBD begins rising in 1995 and rises and drops along
with the availability of Bt corn with a one year delay (two years around 2007-8). The incidence of IBD
also showed a high peak around 1978. In an analysis similar to this one, Qin showed that it was
strongly correlated with saccharine consumption at that time.

The second graph depicts the number of hospital discharges listing peritonitis diagnoses plotted against
the number of acres of Bt corn planted (ECB). The correlation in time in this graph is not as clear as in
the previous, but they are marching along in the same direction at approximately the same time.
Perforation of part of the gastrointestinal tract is the most common cause of peritonitis.

The third graph shows the the number of diagnoses for chronic constipation plotted against Bt corn
planted (ECB and rootworm targeted). Chronic constipation jumped 90% from 2009 to 2010.

The fourth graph is a plot of hospital diagnoses of functional bowel disorder (chronic constipation,
irritable bowel and undetermined) against the number of acres of all Bt corn. This graph also seems to
track well.

The fifth graph shows the number of deaths due to intestinal infections plotted against the number of
acres of all Bt corn planted.

Leaky gut and immune response

If toxins and bacteria are leaking into the abdominal cavity, the body will respond as if it is under
attack. In addition, according to Dr. Pusztai, “The body will regard any genetically modified substance
coming into the digestive system as foreign [because of its mutated DNA].” The body responds to
foreign substances by triggering an immune response. This can be instant, as in an allergic reaction, or
it can be a slower, cell-mediated response. Food allergies and immune diseases of all kinds are also
soaring. Incidence and prevalence data trends are unavailable because many were rare until recently
(fibromyalgia, celiacs disease). Other immune diseases that are on the rise are: asthma, eczema, lupus,
Addison’s disease, Grave’s disease, rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, psoriasis, and psoriatic
arthritis. The final graph is a plot of the hospital discharge diagnoses of rheumatoid arthritis along
with the number of acres of Bt corn planted. Rheumatoid arthritis is rising slowly, while the number of
Bt crops is rising rapidly, but there is a large increase from 2007 to 2010 of rheumatoid arthritis
diagnoses. Chronic immune disorders take a long time to develop and there are likely other factors.

Acknowledgment: Jon Abrahamson helped with data mining for this article.

A paper published 18 April 2013 in the scientific journal Entropy explains the connection between
glyphosate and gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism,
infertility, cancer and Alzheimer’s disease.

According to the authors, “glyphosate enhances the damaging effects of other food borne chemical
residues and environmental toxins. Negative impact on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over
time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body. Here, we show how interference
with CYP enzymes acts synergistically with disruption of the biosynthesis of aromatic amino acids by
gut bacteria, as well as impairment in serum sulfate transport. Consequences are most of the diseases
and conditions associated with a Western diet, which include gastrointestinal disorders, obesity,
diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer’s disease. We explain the
documented effects of glyphosate and its ability to induce disease, and we show that glyphosate is the
‘textbook example’ of exogenous semiotic entropy: the disruption of homeostasis by environmental
toxins.”

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) were first introduced into the food supply in the 1995. One
of the primary genetically engineered (GE) traits is resistance to direct herbicide applications. As a
result, there has been a huge increase in the amount of glyphosate applied to cotton, corn, canola, sugar
beet, and soy crops grown in the U.S. corresponding to the rise in the percentage of these GE varieties
planted.

Since GMOs were introduced into the food supply the rate of chronic health conditions among children
in the United States increased from 12.8% in 1994 to 26.6% in 2006, particularly for asthma, obesity,
and behavior and learning problems. The rate of chronic disease in the entire U.S. population has been
dramatically increasing with an estimated 25% of the U.S. population suffering from multiple chronic
diseases.

According to a recent article in the Seattle Times, “Drug overdose deaths rose for the 11th straight year
[in 2010 according to a CDC report] … Medicines, mostly prescription drugs, were involved in nearly
60 percent of overdose deaths that year, overshadowing deaths from illicit narcotics. … Among the
medication-related deaths, 17 percent were suicides. The report’s data came from death certificates,
which aren’t always clear on whether a death was a suicide or a tragic attempt at getting high.”

It seems that people are so miserable, they are knocking themselves off with their painkillers.

The Academy of Environmental Medicine has issued a position statement on GMO food stating,
“…several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food consumption including
infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol
synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signaling, and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney,
spleen and gastrointestinal system.
“There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is
causation as defined by Hill’s Criteria in the areas of strength of association, consistency, specificity,
biological gradient, and biological plausibility. The strength of association and consistency between
GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies.” They further state that “because GM
foods have not been properly tested for human consumption, and because there is ample evidence of
probable harm,” they call on physicians to educate the public and warn their patients to avoid GM
foods.

People are ill and they are not waiting for scientists to tell them that GMOs are making them ill.
Rachel Linden said in an interview on Weekly Women’s GMO Free News, “I don’t know why science
has replaced common sense. I don’t need to check with my doctor to know how I feel when I eat
GMOs and how I feel when I don’t eat GMOs. I don’t need a scientist to tell me forty years from now
that they were wrong about GMOs. I’m going to decide for myself right now.” Case studies are piling
up of patients who have shown dramatic improvement after taking their doctor’s advice and eliminating
GMO food. Wouldn’t that be so much easier if they had labels?

A new study illustrates the disturbing truth about what mining is doing to our water supply. (Photo: Steve Baxter/Getty Images)A new and sobering report from Earthworks details just how hard mining is on the environment, especially on our dwindling supply of fresh water.How bad are gold, copper and uranium—the so-called “hard rock”—mines? Try the despoiling of 17 to 27 billion gallons of fresh water per year in the U.S. alone.

The annual cost of water treatment by the hard-rock mining industry is a mind-numbing $57 to $67 billion per year. Just 40 mines, most in the American West, cause most of that damage and expense.

How? Virtually all mining operations involve exposing sulfide-bearing ore, which generates sulfuric acid, which then washes into the water supplies.

In the simplest terms, the authors suggest if the water polluted by mines were bottled, it would fill two trillion water bottles and stretch back and forth to the moon 54 times.

The report also suggests that four new proposed mines could pollute an additional 16 billion gallons a year.

Talking about water supplies can be a slippery subject. There are something like 326 million trillion gallons of water on the planet, which are constantly being cycled and recycled: Water evaporates from the ocean, travels through the air, rains down on the land and eventually makes its way back to the ocean.

Since roughly 72 percent of planet Earth is covered by ocean, that means 98 percent of those 326 million trillion gallons are saltwater, thus undrinkable.

That leaves just two percent of the planet’s water as fresh—and 80 percent of that is locked up in the polar ice caps and glaciers. Which means in relative terms, there is very little clean, fresh water on the planet, and when you muck it up, as the mining industry is doing to aquifers, rivers and fisheries, it’s ruined forever. Dirty water is never again truly pure, no matter the filtration systems.

The authors of the report make specific suggestions on how the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers could close legal loopholes that would force mines to pollute less.

Since the EPA has already identified 156 hard-rock mining sites across the country that have the potential to cost between $7 billion to $24 billion to clean up, a key solution would seem to be to prohibit new mines coming online to add to the problem.

Below is part of a 33 page report on GMOs and the toxic problems they cause humans!

Genetically Modified Organisms and the deterioration of health in the United Statesby N.L. Swanson, 4/24/2013

This document was first published as a series of articles on Seattle examiner.comWashington state residents likely to vote on GMO food labels

Hearings have been held in both the Washington state Senate (Feb. 14) and the House (March 5) on the initiative to label GMOs in our food. It is highly unusual for the legislature to take action on an initiative so it is likely that I-522 will show up on our ballots next November. It behooves us to educate ourselves about this important issue.

A majority of Americans favor labeling GMOs

According to a poll taken two weeks ago by the Huffington Post, 82% of Americans think that GMOs should be labeled, 9% believe they don’t need to be labeled and 8% aren’t sure. The poll also showed that, while most people think that GMOs should be labeled, many people don’t really know too much about GMOs.

What is a GMO?

A genetically modified organism, or GMO is the term commonly used for crops that have been genetically engineered (GE) to produce some desired trait. The first GE crops were tobacco plants modified in 1986 to be resistant to direct application of herbicides. The following year, tobacco plants were engineered to resist insects. There followed a host of field trials to also develop plants resistant to viral and fungal diseases and to modify traits such as ripening, starch content and so on. In 1995 the FDA approved GE corn, soy, cotton, canola, potato, squash and tomato for commercialization and the amount of GE crops since then has been steadily increasing. Most often the genes are altered to render
the plant resistant to either insects or herbicides.

How are plants engineered to be insect resistant (IR)?

Sections of the DNA from the bacteria known as Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt)are isolated and inserted into the plant cells by a process known as genetic transformation. The entire plant is then regenerated from the transgenic plant cells. There are thousands of different Bt strains that produce protein crystals toxic to insect pests. Particular strains are chosen to target specific plant pests. The resulting plant contains the Bt toxin in its cells. When the plant is eaten by the target insect the toxin binds to receptors in the insect’s gut, causing the gut wall to break down and allowing toxin spores and normal gut bacteria to enter the body. As spores and bacteria proliferate in the body, the insect dies.

How are plants engineered to be herbicide tolerant (HT)?

Micro-organisms are identified that are tolerant of the active chemical in the herbicide. In the case of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate-resistant enzymes are isolated from a strain of Agrobacterium. These are inserted into the genes of the plant via a multi-step process resulting in a plant that can withstand direct application of the herbicide.
The stance taken by Monsanto, Dow and the other peddlers of both chemicals and genetically engineered seeds is that GMO food is “identical to non-GMO products.” They claim that genetic engineering is no different than plant hybridization, which has been practiced for centuries. It is the reason they gave, and the EPA accepted, for not having to submit GMO food to rigorous testing to obtain EPA approval. It’s up to the companies that manufacture GMOs to research and determine the safety of their products.

Not only are the bacteria genes themselves potentially toxic, but the plants can be sprayed directly with herbicides, the herbicide-resistant plants absorb the poisons and we eat them. It’s difficult to understand how this can be considered “essentially” the same as plant hybridization.

GMOs are prevalent in the U.S. food supply

Chances are that potato or corn chip you are eating has been genetically engineered. Even more so if it has been fried in canola, corn, cottonseed, or soy oil. Most residents of the U.S. are consuming large quantities of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in their food. GMOs were first approved by the FDA for food crops in 1994. Since then the number of FDA approvals for GMO crops has steadily increased.

How are transgenic or genetically engineered (GE) crops approved?

The USDA/Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) issues permits for field trials, and later for general environmental release of GE crops. If the GE crop contains a pesticide, as is the case for Bt crops, approval is also required by the Environmental Protection Agency. If the product from a transgenic crop is for food or feed use, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) must give final approval before the crops can be grown commercially.

How many and what kind of GE crops have been approved?

As of August, 2012, there have been a total of 144 crops approved by the FDA. The most widely and rapidly adopted transgenic crops in the United States are those with herbicide-tolerant traits. Of the 144 crops approved by the FDA, 75% have been genetically engineered to either withstand direct applications of herbicides or they contain an insecticide Bt toxin, or both. In the mid-’90s, scientists figured out how to combine more than one trait in the same plant. These were first released in 1997 and are called “stacked gene traits.” The crops that have been approved are summarized in the table below, along with a partial list of food products and other uses for each type of crop. Any or all of
these products can be found in packaged foods and drinks: cereals, energy bars, chips, juices etc.

Reliable sources in Washington D.C. have informed the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) that Monsanto has begun secretly lobbying its Congressional allies to attach one or more “Monsanto Riders” or amendments to the 2013 Farm Bill that would preempt or prohibit states from requiring labels on genetically engineered (GE) foods.

Let’s put every member of Congress on notice: If you support any Farm Bill amendment that would nullify states’ rights to label genetically modified organisms (GMOs), we’ll vote – or throw – you out of office!

On Wednesday, May 15, an amendment to the House version of the Farm Bill, inserted under the guise of protecting interstate commerce, passed out of the House Agricultural Committee. If the King Amendment makes it into the final Farm Bill, it would take away states’ rights to pass laws governing the production or manufacture of any agricultural product, including food and animals raised for food, that is involved in interstate commerce. The amendment was proposed by Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), largely in response to a California law stating that by 2015, California will allow only eggs to be sold from hens housed in cages specified by California. But policy analysts emphasize that the amendment, broadly and ambiguously written, could be used to prohibit or preempt any state GMO labeling or food safety law.

Will the King Amendment survive the Senate? No one can be sure, say analysts. However few doubt that Monsanto will give up. We can expect that more amendments and riders will be introduced into the Farm Bill–even if the King Amendment fails—over the next month in an attempt to stop the wave of state GMO labeling laws and initiatives moving forward in states like Washington, Vermont, Maine, Connecticut and others.

Monsanto and the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) have admitted privately that they’ve “lost the battle” to stop GE food labeling at the state level, now that states are aggressively moving forward on labeling laws. On May 14, Maine’s House Ag Committee passed a GMO labeling law. On May 10, the Vermont House passed a labeling bill, 99-42, despite massive lobbying by Monsanto and threats to sue the state. And though Monsanto won a razor-thin victory (51 percent to 49 percent) in a costly, hard fought California GMO labeling ballot initiative last November, biotech and Big Food now realize that Washington State voters will likely pass I-522, an upcoming ballot initiative to label GE foods, on November 5.

If Monsanto can’t stop states from passing laws, then the next step is a national preemptive measure. And all signs point to just such a power grab. Earlier this year, Monsanto slipped its extremely unpopular “Monsanto Protection Act,” an act that gives biotech immunity from federal prosecution for planting illegally approved GE crops, into the 2013 Federal Appropriations Bill. During the June 2012 Farm Bill debate, 73 U.S. Senators voted against the right of states to pass mandatory GE food labeling laws. Emboldened by these votes, and now the House Ag Committee’s vote on the King Amendment, Monsanto has every reason to believe Congress would support a potential nullification of states’ rights to label.

The million-strong OCA and its allies in the organic and natural health movement are warning incumbent Senators and House members, Democrats and Republicans alike, that thousands of health and environmental-minded constituents in their Congressional districts or states will work to recall them or drive them out of office if they fail to heed the will of the people and to respect the time-honored traditions of shared state sovereignty over food labels, food safety laws, and consumers’ right to know.

Trouble in Monsanto Nation.
Over the past 20 years Monsanto and the biotech industry, aided and abetted by indentured politicians and corporate agribusiness, have begun seizing control over the global food and farming system, including the legislative, patent, trade, judicial and regulatory bodies that are supposed to safeguard the public interest.

In the U.S., despite mounting evidence of the damage GE crops inflict on human health and the environment, approximately 170 million acres of GE crops, including corn, soybeans, cotton, canola, sugar beets, alfalfa, papaya, and squash, are currently under cultivation. These crops, untested and unlabeled, comprise 41 percent of all cultivated cropland, or 17 percent of all cropland and pastureland combined. According to the GMA, at least 70 percent of non-organic grocery store processed foods contain GMOs. And GE grains and mill byproducts now supply the overwhelming majority of animal feed on the factory farms that supply 90 percent to 95 percent of the meat, eggs and dairy products that Americans consume.

Yet despite their marketplace dominance, record profits and enormous political clout in Washington D.C., Monsanto and the biotech industry are in deep trouble. Evidence is mounting that Monsanto’s top-selling herbicide, Roundup, is a deadly poison, destroying important human gut bacteria and likely contributing to the rapid increase of food allergies and serious human diseases including cancer, autism, neurological disorders , Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD), dementia, Alzheimer’s, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Those most susceptible to poisoning by Monsanto’s Roundup are children and the elderly.

Scientists aren’t the only ones raising new questions about Roundup. Farmers are complaining that they’re being forced to spray more and more chemicals on crops increasingly under siege from a growing army of herbicide-resistant weeds. The situation is so bad that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) just raised the limits of Roundup residue allowed on grains and vegetables to even more dangerous levels. But just in case the EPA someday stops raising the limits, Monsanto, Dow and the biotech industry are working on a new “solution” to the onslaught of herbicide-resistant Superweeds: They’ve applied for approval of a new and highly controversial generation of super toxic herbicide-resistant GE crops, including “Agent Orange” (2,4-D and dicamba-resistant) corn, soybeans and cotton.

“The use of 2,4-D is not new; it’s actually one of the most widely used herbicides in the world. What is new is that farmers will now ‘carpet bomb’ staple food crops like soy and corn with this chemical at a previously unprecedented scale—just the way glyphosate has been indiscriminately applied as a result of Roundup Ready crops. In fact, if 2,4-D resistant crops receive approval and eventually come to replace Monsanto’s failing Roundup-resistant crops as Dow intends, it is likely that billions of pounds will be needed, on top of the already insane levels of Roundup being used (1.6 billion lbs were used in 2007 in the US alone).”

In addition to these Agent Orange crops, an expanded menu of genetically engineered organisms are awaiting approval. Next on the menu? GE apples, trees, and salmon.

State Labeling Laws: The ‘skull and crossbones’ that terrify Monsanto
Monsanto’s greatest fear isn’t a federal government charged with protecting the health and safety of its citizens. Congress and the White House seem only too happy to oblige the biotech industry’s unquenchable thirst for growth, power and dominance. No, it’s the massive, unstoppable (so far) grassroots movement of Millions Against Monsanto that strikes fear in the heart of the Biotech Bully. U.S. citizens are waking up. They’re demanding labels on genetically engineered foods, similar to those already required in the European Union. They’re calling for serious independent safety-testing of GE crops and animals, both those already approved (especially Monsanto’s Roundup-resistant crops) and those awaiting approval.

The anti-GMO movement has finally figured out, after 20 years of fruitlessly lobbying Congress, the FDA and the White House, that the federal government is not going to require labels on GE foods. Instead the movement has shifted the battleground on GMO labeling from Monsanto and Big Food’s turf in Washington D.C. to the more favorable terrain of state ballot initiatives and state legislative action—publicizing the fact that a state GMO labeling law will have the same marketplace impact as a national labeling law.

State laws spell doom for Monsanto. Companies like Kellogg’s, General Mills, Coca-Cola, Pepsi/Frito-Lay, Dean Foods, Unilever, Con-Agra, Safeway, Wal-Mart and Smuckers are not going to label in just one or two states. Monsanto knows that U.S. food companies will go GMO-free in the entire U.S., rather than admit to consumers that their products contain GMOs.

As Monsanto itself has pointed out, labels on genetically engineered foods are like putting a “skull and crossbones” on food packages. This is why Monsanto and their allies poured $46 million into defeating a California ballot initiative last year that would have required labels on GMO foods. This is why Monsanto has lobbied strenuously in 30 states this year to prevent, or at least delay, state mandatory labeling laws from being passed. This is why Monsanto has threatened to file federal lawsuits against Vermont, Connecticut, Maine and Washington if they dare grant citizens the right to know whether or not their food has been genetically engineered or not.

And this is why Monsanto’s minions are trying to insert amendments or riders into the Farm Bill that will make it nearly impossible, even illegal, for states to pass GMO labeling laws. And there’s nothing to stop them when Congress is filled with pro-biotech cheerleaders who could care less that 90 percent of U.S. consumers want mandatory labels and proper safety testing of genetically engineered crops and foods.

Countering Monsanto’s Final Offensive: Throw the Bums Out!
Only a massive grassroots resistance will deter the U.S. Senate and House from stomping on our rights. Only an unprecedented campaign of public education, petition-gathering and grassroots pressure will be able to convince the ever-more corrupt and indentured politicians in Washington D.C. to back off.

Eighteen state constitutions have century-old provisions for state registered voters to collect petitions and recall state and local officials, forcing them to either resign or stand for reelection. But what very few Americans, and even members of Congress, realize is that 11 states have constitutional provisions to recall U.S. Senators and House of Representative members, as well as state elected officials.

It’s time we exercise the full power of direct democracy, not just state and municipal ballot initiatives. We must continue to support efforts like the current state ballot initiative to label GMOs in Washington state, and county ballot initiatives to ban GMOs, factory farms and other corporate crimes, in the 24 states and hundreds of counties and municipalities where these are allowed. But we also need to use the power we have to recall and throw out of office our out-of-control Congressional Senators and Representatives as well.

If our elected officials in Congress continue to represent Monsanto and big corporations, rather than their constituents, then let’s throw the bums out! If the Washington political Establishment, both Democrats and Republicans, continue to trample on our inalienable constitutional rights and contemptuously disregard the 225-year principle of a shared balance of power between the federal government, the states and local government, then we have no choice but to recall them or throw them out of office.

Please join the nation’s organic consumers and natural health advocates in this strategic battle, the Food Fight of Our Lives. Please join this campaign to save, not only our right to choose what’s in our food, but our basic right to democratic representation and self-determination as well.

Tell your Congressmen and women, especially the 73 incumbents who voted last year to eliminate states rights’ to legislate on GMO labels, and those in the House this week who voted to support the King Amendment that “enough is enough!” Power to the People!

Photo: British Petroleum (BP) mix of oil spill and extremely toxic Corexit from after the Deepwater Horizon explosion, and the biggest oil spill in world history of approximately 210 million gallons (780,000 cubic meters) of Louisiana sweet crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, 2010! The spill covered up to 68,000 square miles or 180,000 square kilometers!

Three years ago, when BP’s Deepwater Horizon began leaking some 210 million gallons of Louisiana Crude into the Gulf of Mexico, the U.S. government allowed the company to apply chemical “dispersants” to the blossoming oil slick to prevent toxic gunk from reaching the fragile bays, beaches, and mangroves of the coast, where so much marine life originates. But a number of recent studies show that BP and the feds may have made a huge mistake, for which everything from microscopic organisms to bottlenose dolphins are now paying the highest price.

After the spill, BP secured about a third of the world’s supply of dispersants, namely Corexit 9500 and 9527, according to The New York Times. Of the two, 9527 is more toxic. Corexit dispersants emulsify oil into tiny beads, causing them to sink toward the bottom. Wave action and wind turbulence degrade the oil further, and evaporation concentrates the toxins in the oil-Corexit mixture, including dangerous compounds called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), known to cause cancer and developmental disorders.

When BP began spraying the Gulf, critics cried foul. They said Corexit is not only toxic to marine life on its own, but when combined with crude oil, the mixture becomes several times more toxic than oil or dispersant alone.

Not surprisingly, BP Chief Executive Bob Dudley defended use of the dispersant. “The toxicity of Corexit is about the same as dish soap, which is effectively what it is and how it works,” he told stockholders. “In hindsight no one believes that that was the wrong thing and it would have been much worse without the use of it. I do not believe anybody—anybody with almost common sense—would say waves of black oil washing into the marshes and beaches would have been a better thing, under any circumstances.”

But many scientists, such as Dr. William Sawyer, a Louisiana toxicologist, argue that Corexit can be deadly to people and sea creatures alike. “Corexit components are also known as deodorized kerosene,” Sawyer said in a written statement for the Gulf Oil Disaster Recovery Group, a legal consortium representing environmental groups and individuals affected by the Deepwater Horizon spill. “With respect to marine toxicity and potential human health risks, studies of kerosene exposures strongly indicate potential health risks to volunteers, workers, sea turtles, dolphins, breathing reptiles and all species which need to surface for air exchanges, as well as birds and all other mammals.” When Corexit mixes with and breaks down crude, it makes the oil far more “bioavailable” to plants and animals, critics allege, because it is more easily absorbed in its emulsified state.

Mix of oil and Corexit heads towards surfer in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010.

Sawyer tested edible fish and shellfish from the Gulf for absorption of petroleum hydrocarbon (PHC), believed to have been facilitated by Corexit. Tissue samples taken prior to the accident had no measurable PHC. But after the oil spill, Sawyer found tissue concentrations up to 10,000 parts per million, or 1 percent of the total. The study, he said, “shows that the absorption [of the oil] was enhanced by the Corexit.”

In April 2012, Louisiana State University’s Department of Oceanography and Coastal Sciences was finding lesions and grotesque deformities in sea life—including millions of shrimp with no eyes and crabs without eyes or claws—possibly linked to oil and dispersants.

The shocking story was ignored by major U.S. media, but covered in depth by Al Jazeera. BP said such deformities were “common” in aquatic life in the Gulf and caused by bacteria or parasites. But further studies point back to the spill.

A just-released study from the University of South Florida found that underwater plumes of BP oil, dispersed by Corexit, had produced a “massive die-off” of foraminifera, microscopic organisms at the base of the food chain. Other studies show that, as a result of oil and dispersants, plankton have either been killed or have absorbed PAHs before being consumed by other sea creatures.

Hydrocarbon-laden, mutated seafood is not the only legacy left behind by Corexit, many scientists, physicians, environmentalists, fishermen, and Gulf Coast residents contend. Earlier this week, TakePart wrote about Steve Kolian, a researcher and founder of the nonprofit group EcoRigs, whose volunteer scientists and divers seek to preserve offshore oil and gas platforms after production stops, for use as artificial reefs and for alternative energy production.

Oil from the Deepwater Horizon rig is visible on the surface of Gulf of Mexico in this June 18, 2010 satellite image provided by NASA.

EcoRigs divers took water and marine life samples at several locations in the months following the blowout. Now, they and countless other Gulf residents are sick, with symptoms resembling something from a sci-fi horror film, including bleeding from the nose, ears, breasts, and even anus. Others complain of cognitive damage, including what one man calls getting “stuck stupid,” when he temporarily cannot move or speak, but can still hear.

“If we are getting sick, then you know the marine life out in the Gulf is too,” Kolian said. The diver and researcher completed an affidavit on human and marine health used in GAP’s report.

Kolian’s team has done studies of their own to alarming results. “We recently submitted a paper showing levels of hydrocarbons in seafood were up to 3,000 times higher than safety thresholds for human consumption,” he said. “Concentrations in biota [i.e. all marine life] samples were even greater.”

Kolian’s friend and colleague, Scott Porter, described in his affidavit to GAP how Corexit had caused dispersed crude to coat the bottom of the sea in a sickening, deadly film. In July 2011, he and other divers traveled to a part of the Florida Panhandle, known as the Emerald Coast for its pristine seawater, to collect samples for the Surfrider Foundation.

“When we went diving, however, the water had a brownish white haze that resembled what we saw in offshore Louisiana at 30 feet below sea level,” Porter’s affidavit stated. “I have never witnessed anything like that since I began diving in the Emerald Coast 20 years ago. We witnessed…a reddish brown substance on the seafloor that resembled tar and spanned a much larger area than is typical of natural runoff.”

In areas covered with the substance, “we noticed much less sea life,” Porter continued. “There were hardly any sand dollars or crabs and only some fish, whereas we would normally see an abundance of organisms. It was desolate.”

A bird covered with oil from the spill. The massive oil spill lasted an almost agonizing three months from April 20 – July 15, 2010! However, the oil well was not officially capped and finally sealed until September 19, 2010! Reports continue to circulate that the well still leaks an estimated 400 gallons of oil per day into the gulf! Enjoy your seafood!

“It’s as safe as Dawn dishwashing liquid.” That’s what Jamie Griffin says the BP man told her about the smelly, rainbow-streaked gunk coating the floor of the “floating hotel” where Griffin was feeding hundreds of cleanup workers during the BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. Apparently, the workers were tracking the gunk inside on their boots. Griffin, as chief cook and maid, was trying to clean it. But even boiling water didn’t work.

“The BP representative said, ‘Jamie, just mop it like you’d mop any other dirty floor,’” Griffin recalls in her Louisiana drawl.

Griffin did as she was told: “I tried Pine-Sol, bleach, I even tried Dawn on those floors.” As she scrubbed, the mix of cleanser and gunk occasionally splashed onto her arms and face.

Within days, the 32-year-old single mother was coughing up blood and suffering constant headaches. She lost her voice. “My throat felt like I’d swallowed razor blades,” she says.

Then things got much worse.

Like hundreds, possibly thousands, of workers on the cleanup, Griffin soon fell ill with a cluster of excruciating, bizarre, grotesque ailments. By July, unstoppable muscle spasms were twisting her hands into immovable claws. In August, she began losing her short-term memory. After cooking professionally for 10 years, she couldn’t remember the recipe for vegetable soup; one morning, she got in the car to go to work, only to discover she hadn’t put on pants. The right side, but only the right side, of her body “started acting crazy. It felt like the nerves were coming out of my skin. It was so painful. My right leg swelled—my ankle would get as wide as my calf—and my skin got incredibly itchy.”

“These are the same symptoms experienced by soldiers who returned from the Persian Gulf War with Gulf War syndrome,” says Dr. Michael Robichaux, a Louisiana physician and former state senator, who treated Griffin and 113 other patients with similar complaints. As a general practitioner, Robichaux says he had “never seen this grouping of symptoms together: skin problems, neurological impairments, plus pulmonary problems.” Only months later, after Kaye H. Kilburn, a former professor of medicine at the University of Southern California and one of the nation’s leading environmental health experts, came to Louisiana and tested 14 of Robichaux’s patients did the two physicians make the connection with Gulf War syndrome, the malady that afflicted an estimated 250,000 veterans of that war with a mysterious combination of fatigue, skin inflammation, and cognitive problems.

BP claims to have used 1.8 million gallons of Corexit, about 1/3 of the world’s supply, to ‘disperse’ the oil spill! The Coast Guard granted BP 74 exemptions for Corexit surface use in 48 days! The EPA and the federal government were aware of this!

Corexit’s chemical composition:

Corexit’s main ingredient:

Corexit’s main ingredient 9527A – 2 Butoxy Ethanol

Three years later, the BP disaster has been largely forgotten, both overseas and in the U.S. Popular anger has cooled. The media have moved on.

As for Obama, the same president who early in the BP crisis blasted the “scandalously close relationship” between oil companies and government regulators two years later ran for re-election boasting about how much new oil and gas development his administration had approved.

Congress is largely bought out by Big Oil! No party is innocent! We should be asking ourselves “Why are we not progressively protesting the destruction the fossil fuel industry has drenched our planet in?” How big of a spill does it take to get America in a uproar enough to take direct action by forcing our ELECTED officials to disperse and divest from dirty, finite fossil fuels? Money may speak volumes, but millions of voices reach farther than any dollar can stretch! – John Loeffler, Fountain City, Wisconsin, U.S.A.

Corporate politics is business as usual inside the United States, as I am once again shocked to report the EPAhas sided with industry lobbyists over public health in approving a highly dangerous pesticide that the European Union recently decided to ban over fears of environmental devastation. Not only have neonicotinoidpesticides been linked repeatedly to mass bee deaths, also known as Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), but the continued use of such pesticides threatens other aspects of nature (and humans) as well.

What’s even more amazing is that the decision not only comes after the EU publicly discussed the major dangers surrounding the use of the pesticides, but after the USDA released a report surrounding the continued honeybee deaths and the related effects — a report in which they detailed pesticides to be a contributing factor. Just the impact on the honeybees alone, and we now know that these pesticides are killing aquatic life and subsequently the birds that feed upon them, amounts to a potential $200 billion in global damages per year. We’re talking about the devastation of over 100 crops, from apples to avocados and plums.

And there’s countless scientists and a large number of environmental science groups speaking out on this. The EPA has no lack of information the subject. And sure, there are other contributing factors to bee deaths, there’s no question about that. We have an environment right now being hit with Monsanto’s Roundup even in residential areas, we have chemical rain, we have insane amounts of EMF — but it’s pretty clear that neonicotinoid pesticides are at least a major contributing factor. And beyond that, they have no place in the food supply to begin with.

“The EU vote comes after significant findings by the European Food Safety Agency that these pesticides pose an unacceptable risk to bees and their use should be restricted. Along with habitat loss and pathogens, a growing body of science points to neonicotinoid pesticides as a key factor in drastically declining bee populations.”

So why are they approving this pesticide to now pollute the United States in what potentially amounts to an even larger capacity than the EU? A move that will ultimately escalate the price of food worldwide due to the likely nature of continued bee deaths and subsequent crop impact? That’s the power of phony corporate science.

An underground landfill fire near tons of nuclear waste raises serious health and safety concerns – so why isn’t the government doing more to help?

here’s a fire burning in Bridgeton, Missouri. It’s invisible to area residents, buried deep beneath the ground in a North St. Louis County landfill. But the smoldering waste is an unavoidable presence in town, giving off a putrid odor that clouds the air miles away – an overwhelming stench described by one area woman as “rotten eggs mixed with skunk and fertilizer.” Residents report smelling it at K-12 school buses, a TGI Fridays and even the operating room of a local hospital. “It smells like dead bodies,” observes another local.

On a Saturday morning in March, one mile south of the landfill, several Bridgeton residents have gathered at a small home in a blue-collar subdivision called Spanish Village. Concerned citizens Karen Nickel and Dawn Chapman are here to answer questions posed by four of their neighbors. “How will I ever sell my house?” “Am I going to end up with cancer 20 years down the road?” “Is there even a solution?”

In February, the landfill’s owner, Republic Services, sent glossy fliers to residents within stink radius claiming the noxious odor posed no safety risk. But official reports say otherwise. Temperature probes reveal the fire has already surpassed normal heat levels. Reports from the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) indicate dangerously high levels of benzene and hydrogen sulfide in the air. In March, Missouri’s Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) – which has jurisdiction over Bridgeton Landfill – quietly posted an Internet notice cautioning citizens with chronic respiratory diseases to limit time outdoors. A month after Republic distributed its potentially misleading flier, the state attorney general sued the company on eight counts of environmental violations, including pollution and public nuisance. And this week, as part of a settlement set to be announced Tuesday, Republic sent another round of fliers offering to move local families to hotels during a period of increased odor related to remediation efforts.

Nickel and Chapman are stay-at-home moms; Chapman has three special-needs kids. Neither of them wants to spend her time worrying about a damn landfill fire. But until someone higher up the power chain intervenes, they have sworn to call municipal offices, file Sunshine requests and post notices to the community’s Facebook group, no matter how unsettling the facts they uncover. Scariest of all: The Bridgeton landfill fire is burning close to at least 8,700 tons of nuclear weapons wastes. “To have somebody call you at 11 P.M., and they’re in tears, concerned for their family, that’s heartbreaking,” Chapman tells Rolling Stone. “We’re doing this because we don’t have a choice. If we don’t come together as a community and fight, no one’s going to do it for us.”

West Lake Landfill is an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Superfund site that’s home to some of the oldest radioactive wastes in the world. A six-foot chain-link fence surrounds the perimeter, plastered with bright yellow hazard signs that warn of the dangers within. On one corner stands a rusty gas pump. About 1,200 feet south of the radioactive EPA site, the fire at Bridgeton Landfill spreads out like hot barbeque coals. No one knows for sure what happens when an underground inferno meets a pool of atomic waste, but residents aren’t eager to find out.

At a March 15th press conference, Peter Anderson – an economist who has studied landfills for over 20 years – raised the worst-case scenario of a “dirty bomb,” meaning a non-detonated, mass release of floating radioactive particles in metro St. Louis. “Now, to be clear, a dirty bomb is not nuclear fission, it’s not an atomic bomb, it’s not a weapon of mass destruction,” Anderson assured meeting attendants in Bridgeton’s Machinists Union Hall. “But the dispersal of that radioactive material in air that could reach – depending upon weather conditions – as far as 10 miles from the site could make it impossible to have economic activity continue.”

In a response offered to Rolling Stone, Republic Services says, “Mr. Anderson made his statement without any proof or evidence, and he ignored the fact that ongoing evaluation by MDNR, EPA and local authorities have confirmed that the increased heat at the Bridgeton Landfill has not impacted West Lake and does not pose a threat to the materials at West Lake.” Republic Services also denies that it is dealing with a “fire” – the company prefers the euphemism “subsurface smoldering event.” Under orders from the state, Republic is drilling holes to contain this “smoldering event.” Republic estimates it’s already spent over $20 million – about 0.25 percent of its 2012 revenues – on such mitigation efforts, “not because we have to, but because it is the right thing to do.”

When Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster sued Republic Services on March 27th, outlining a host of alleged odor pollution and public health violations at Bridgeton Landfill, he described the risk of the fire contacting the nearby radwaste as a mere “remote hypothetical.” But many residents are far from reassured.

The story of West Lake’s radioactive waste goes back to April 1942, when a St. Louis company called Mallinckrodt Chemical Works began purifying tens of thousands of tons of uranium for the University of Chicago as part of the Manhattan Project. Mallinckrodt’s workers did not receive adequate safety protections and had little knowledge of what they were dealing with – oversights that would lead to disproportionately high cancer death rates among workers, as documented in books, dissertations and journalistic accounts, including a groundbreaking seven-part series from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch in 1989. Over the next 25 years, the company’s uranium processing also created huge amounts of radioactive waste, much of which was secretly dumped at sites throughout the St. Louis metropolitan area, including West Lake.

Today, West Lake’s radioactive waste – all 143,000 cubic yards of it – sits on the outskirts of a former quarry with practically none of the standard safety features found in most municipal landfills. No clay liner blocks toxic leachate – or “garbage juice” – from seeping into area groundwater. No cap keeps toxic gas from dispersing into the air. This unprotected waste sits on a floodplain 1.5 miles away from the Missouri River. Eight miles downstream is a drinking water reservoir that serves 300,000 St. Louisans. Worst of all: The materials dumped in this populous metropolitan area will continue to pose a hazard for hundreds of thousands of years.

The EPA’s Region 7 is based in Lenexa, Kansas, about 250 miles west of St. Louis. The agency operates from a glass-paned office building that once housed the international headquarters of Applebee’s. In an empty conference room on the ground floor, Dan Gravatt, the EPA manager tasked with handling West Lake, looks every bit the government scientist in his blue work shirt, khaki pants and thin-framed glasses.

In 2008, the EPA decided to cap the radiotoxic material dumped at West Lake and leave it there. Capping the site meant piling five feet of dirt and rocks on top and implementing long-term monitoring for contamination. Facing widespread public pressure, including a letter from St. Louis mayor Francis Slay, the EPA postponed its decision pending further studies.

Gravatt has a smooth, rehearsed response to almost any question about the West Lake landfill – a skill he put to use at a community meeting on January 17th, when more than 300 concerned citizens gathered to hear the results of those EPA studies. One person in attendance was Kay Drey, an 80-year-old civil rights and anti-nuclear activist who’s been advocating for the removal of wastes from the St. Louis area for more than three decades. “I was very disappointed,” Drey tells RS. “The evidence is clear. This is radioactively hot stuff and it shouldn’t be in the floodplain by the Missouri river. And if they can’t admit to that – well, it’s incomprehensible.”

Back at his office, Gravatt insists that West Lake’s radioactive wastes only pose health risks for people who come in direct contact with the site, adding that the nuclear dump “doesn’t pose any current exposure pathways to area residents as it stands now.”

But Robert Criss, a geochemist at Washington University in St. Louis who has studied the issue closely, says the EPA is grossly underplaying a host of risks surrounding West Lake – flooding, earthquakes, liquefaction, groundwater leaching – that could pave the way for a public health crisis. That’s not to mention the recent development of an underground fire nearby. Says Criss, “There is no geological site I can think of that is more absurd to place such waste.”

Digging through old Nuclear Regulatory Commission studies, he recently stumbled upon what he describes as an error with major implications. For the last three decades, various government documents have referred to the waste at the landfill as “leached barium sulfate,” a nearly insoluble compound generated from uranium processing. But Criss says that the NRC’s own data shows the material dumped at West Lake contains far too little barium and sulfate to compose barium sulfate – by factors of 100 and 1000, respectively. “If I had this long to study something, I would be pretty embarrassed if this is what I came up with,” says Criss. “It is inconceivable for these people to promote remedies when they don’t even know what they’re dealing with.”

In a statement to Rolling Stone, the EPA disputed Criss’ findings, but declined to offer further explanation, instead deferring to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Upon request for a chemical analysis proving the waste is barium sulfate, the NRC sent RS the same 1982 report that Criss disputes.

So what happens now? The EPA officially lists four potentially responsible parties for the West Lake Superfund site. One is the U.S. Department of Energy. A second is Cotter Corporation, a company whose contractors secretly dumped nuclear waste at West Lake in the Seventies, as uncovered soon after by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. The others are Bridgeton Landfill LLC and Rock Road Industries LLC – both subsidiaries of Republic Services, which currently runs the landfill. Under Superfund law, these four parties must ultimately foot the bill for any remedial actions ordered by the EPA; at the same time, it is these same four parties that contract and pay for all EPA studies leading up to a decision. This might seem like a conflict of interest, but Gravatt insists it’s all on the up and up: “We tell them what to do.” It must be a coincidence, then, that the EPA’s capping plan cost the potentially responsible parties only $41 million, compared to up to $415 million required to actually excavate the waste.

Missouri State Representative Keith English has another idea to fix the mess at West Lake. In February, English and 12 co-sponsors filed a resolution with the state assembly to transfer control of the site from the EPA to the Army Corps of Engineers’ Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Actions Program (FUSRAP) – a proven success that has already cleared more than one million cubic yards of atomic waste from other sites in the St. Louis area, shipping the radioactive contaminants to safe disposal cells in Utah and Idaho. A nearly identical resolution filed by State Senator Maria Chappelle-Nadal in Missouri’s other legislative body garnered three co-sponsors. “The educated people that deal with this type of waste can see that there’s an issue with just putting a cap on top,” says English.

Unfortunately, anything that passes through Missouri’s statehouses would only represent a symbolic victory. Since West Lake remains under federal jurisdiction, only an act of Congress could transfer the site to the Army Corps. For this reason, many are looking to Missouri’s U.S. Senate delegation – Democrat Claire McCaskill and Republican Roy Blunt – to lead on this issue. “I hope that our resolutions pass and get to Senator Blunt and Senator McCaskill’s office,” English says. “Because they’ve been sweeping it under the rug for the past several years.”

The Missouri Coalition for the Environment, which has advocated for the removal of West Lake wastes for more than a decade, in part blames Missouri’s ties to the nuclear energy industry for the senators’ lack of action. Both McCaskill and Blunt, as well as Missouri Governor Jay Nixon, have pushed for bringing more nuclear reactors to the state. Any more attention to a hazardous radioactive dump might get in the way of that messaging. “They won’t touch this with a 10-foot pole,” says the Coalition’s safe energy director, Ed Smith. “It doesn’t fit their narrative of clean nuclear power and ‘jobs, jobs, jobs.'”

Blunt has yet to make any public statement on the issue, and his office has not responded to requests for comment. McCaskill, meanwhile, supported the 2008 cap-and-leave plan for the West Lake radwaste; on March 12th of this year, she sent a response to several concerned citizens, assuring them, “I will continue to monitor these situations and ensure that any proposal put forward to address them provides a safe, cost-effective solution for Missourians.”

McCaskill’s reference to a “cost-effective solution” didn’t sit well with the activists in Bridgeton. “I don’t give a flying fuck how much it costs,” says Chapman. “This is about my children.”

Bridgeton’s underground fire was news to Ramona Herbert, who moved to Spanish Village with her family last November. She and her husband, Joshua, came here from St. Louis’ inner city, hoping for a safer place to raise their kids. When the Herberts signed a five-year lease for their new home, no one disclosed to them that hot nuclear dumps sit a mile north from their children’s bedrooms. No one told the Herberts that an ongoing landfill fire burns just down the street from their local Bob Evans restaurant. After two months in her new home, Ramona Herbert noticed an EPA flier on her door announcing a community meeting, but it meant little to her.

“My landlord said to me that we have a little sewage problem,” she recalls. “So I’m thinking the sewage system isn’t working right.” But the stench only got worse, and she started having trouble sleeping. Parents stopped letting 14-year-old Mateo Herbert’s friends shoot hoops in his neighborhood, because something in the air was making their kids’ eyes water. And Joshua Herbert, who boasted a nearly spotless medical history, started suffering terrible headaches.

Ramona Herbert learned about St. Louis’ nuclear waste legacy from a Rolling Stone reporter. As soon as she found out, she got in touch with Chapman, and she is now part of a growing coalition. Like hundreds of other concerned citizens in North St. Louis, she wants answers. “When were we going to be warned?” Herbert wonders, standing at the door of her new home. “When is it too late?”

The shale gasdrilling boom has changed the lives of many Pennsylvanians. Two-thirds of Pennsylvania sits on top of Marcellus Shale, one of the world’s largest shale gas deposits. While some other states and countries are taking their time to figure out how to proceed with shale gas drilling, Pennsylvania has welcomed the gas industry and allowed it to move ahead at a rapid speed.
By featuring stories from Pennsylvania residents, including a cattle farmer who lost stock due to gas drilling, grain farmer who leased her land for drilling six years ago, company that is recycling frack wastewater and cancer-survivor-fractivist who helps people who have been negatively impacted by drilling, this documentary goes beyond the polarized fracking debate and humanizes the issue.
An independent filmmaker and journalist, Kirsi Jansa has been witnessing the many impacts of the shale gas drilling boom in Pennsylvania since early 2011. This 16-minute documentary, Life above Marcellus Shale 2011-2012, provides multiple perspectives of shale gas drilling. It is based on the first ten episodes of her short documentary series, Gas Rush Stories.

The report examines how the EPA and federal wildlife agencies — the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service — assess the harmful impacts of pesticides on the nation’s endangered species, and how to better protect endangered species from harmful chemicals. It finds that the EPA has not relied on the best scientific information available; has not effectively coordinated with expert wildlife agencies; and has not adequately analyzed the sub-lethal, indirect and cumulative effects of pesticides. The report recommends methods for addressing these problems.